calculated risk: why people live in disaster...
TRANSCRIPT
PSYCHOLOGY http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology
Calculated Risk: Why People Live in Disaster Zones
OCT 6, 2015 09:09 AM ET // BY DANI COOPER, ABC SCIENCE ONLINE
VIEW RELATED GALLERY »A couple walk through the flood waters pushed up from Lake Pontchatrain by Hurricane Ike near the Marina on Sept. 12, 2008 in New Orleans, Louisiana.CHRIS GRAYTHEN/GETTY IMAGES
GALLERYWhenEarthAttacks:PhotosVIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
VIEW CAPTION +
UP NEXTWeird Fears: Things That Don't Go Bump In The Night‹›
RELATED links
When Earth Attacks: Photos
Los Angeles 'Big One' Could Come Sooner Than Expected: Study
Katrina 10 Years Later: Is New Orleans Sunk?
Humans may be willing to put daily pleasure ahead of the threat of long-term disaster when selecting where to live, a new international study suggests.
Study co-author Professor Ben Newell, of the University of NSW, said the research examined how people would react to being told of a predicted increase in the risk of natural disasters with climate change.
Professor Newell, from the School of Psychology, said it was surprising how little weight participants in the study gave to disaster threat.
What's a Thousand-Year Storm?
PLAY VIDEO
How Well Can We Predict Earthquakes?
What causes earthquakes, and will we ever be able to tell when a big one's going to hit?
“Even when the long-run value of living in the place is lower than staying safe, people still persisted with these riskier choices,” he said.
“It is like living by the coast is fine most of the time, but are you willing to risk that chance of inundation?”
It was previously assumed more information would lead people to reduce their exposure to risk.
However, Professor Newell and his colleagues from the UK and Israel, who published their research today in Nature Climate Change, found the opposite was true.
Information after a disaster could have the “paradoxical effect of changing people’s perception of risk in the opposite direction”, Professor Newell said.
Not Like 'San Andreas,' But LA Faces Real Tsunami Danger
“There was a tendency after a disaster had hit for some people to move into that area, which is consistent with a kind of thinking that lightning isn’t going to strike in the same spot twice,” he said.
Studying risk in ‘microworld’For the study, the research team created a “microworld” that contained three villages with varying levels of risk attached to living there.
The 180 participants earned points for where they chose to live, but also lost points when a catastrophe hit their dwelling.
One region of the “microworld” was safe: catastrophes never occurred, but the points for choosing to live there were modest.
A second region offered more points, but rare catastrophes occurred which affected a small portion of the dwellings.
A third region had very rare catastrophes, which affected almost all the dwellings, but individual homeowners faced the same probability of disasters as in region two.
Historic Flooding Swamps the Southeast: Photos
The participants were given accurate information about the risk of catastrophe in each region.
However, the way they heard about disasters was varied in a way designed to mimic three different ways people might have access to information in real life — personal experience only, local information sources only, or additional information from afar via the media or authorities.
“The condition where people tolerated more risk was where they could see the risk from all of the different regions,” Professor Newell said.
“You get the sense that most of the time things are okay so they tolerate this possibility of a rare disaster occurring.”
However, when people were only given the factual data and were not aware of what was happening globally, they were less likely to tolerate the risk, he said.
Importance of communicating threatsProfessor Newell said the findings highlighted the importance of how trends and the accumulation of disaster events were communicated.
“Saying that it is a ‘one in a 100-year storm’ is not the best way to get across the accumulation of the risk,” he said.
“We need to emphasize the occurrence rather than the non-occurrence of these events.”
This could mean a shift to risk summaries that focused on long time intervals, as it would more likely include multiple disasters and emphasize the increasing prevalence of disasters.
However, Professor Newell said he was wary of drawing too much from the research.
“My biggest concern is jumping from a result in our experimental world to what the implications are for major societal disasters,” he said.
“But at least it sheds some light on how people combine a description of a risk with the outcomes they perceive day-by-day in their experience.”
This originally appeared on ABC Science Online.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/todays-question/2010/03/does-it-make-sense-to-live-in-a-flood-prone-area/
MPR News Share your insight
Environment/Energy · Security
Does it make sense to live in a flood-prone area?
Eric Ringham March 17, 2010, 5:00 AM36 comments
From Fargo-Moorhead to downtown St. Paul, residents and business owners are bracing
for spring floods. In some areas, such floods are becoming a regular occurrence. Today’s
Question: Does it make sense to live in a flood-prone area?
‹ OlderWhat should the Catholic Church do about the sexual abuse issue?
Newer ›Would you like to see President Reagan on the $50 bill?
Browse by category Education Health Economy Politics/Government Culture Religion/Ethics Science/Technology Transportation Race/Gender Environment/Energy Security International affairs Immigration Media Military
Browse by category
About the blogger
Eric Ringham
Related Questions
● Should PolyMet build its proposed copper-nickel mine?
● Should Minnesota drop the caucus system for a presidential primary?
● Who do you support on Super Tuesday?
● Clark
● No How do you legislate against stupidity unless you are a democrat who believes
everyone is a victum?
● Kevin
● Absolutely not.
● Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.
● Breaking news: The Red River is flooding again, and again, and again…..
● Scott
● No! Are my tax dollars involved as well?
● bsimon
● not to me.
● What makes less sense is that we bail out people who live in floodplains more than
once.
● I’m OK with the fed flood insurance program, but after a house is flooded once, we
should buy it at pre-flood market value & not insure it again.
● Craig
● Wow, jumping right into the snarkiness this morning. I think it is easy to say at first
glance that no one should live in a flood-prone area. But take a step back. Should we
also say that no one should live in an area prone to earth quakes? Is California now
off limits? What about tornadoes? Should we clear out Great Plains? Clearly, we
should be smart about where we live and perhaps there are some locations that
should be deemed unsafe for habitation but I don’t think we can put out the blanket
statement that people shouldn’t live in a flood-prone area at all.
● Steven
● Does it make sense to live in an earthquake-prone area? Or a wildfire-prone area?
Or a hurricane zone? Only if you build your house in such a way that it can
withstand the regular recurrence of whatever natural events are common in your
area. In a flood plain, build your house on mound (or stilts in areas where freezing is
not a problem). Build the mound first, if necessary.
● Building without regard to local hazards and then expecting the government to pay
for the inevitable damage is like running a big corporation into the ground and then
expecting a government bailout.
● Kevin
● If there are areas in California, that are regularly (read annually) severly impacted
by earthquakes, then people shouldn’t be allowed to live there. Especially if tax-
payers are funding the flood prevention and re-building every year.
● If you can find a town in Tornado Alley that is devastated year after year, while
towns 20 miles away are never touched, then you can make an arguement for
clearing out that town. You won’t find that town. But you will find many towns and
cities that flood year after year.
● I stronly support bsimon’s comment regarding fed flood insurance.
● Phil
● As much sense as living in a hurricane-prone area, or earthquake-prone area, or
wildfire-prone area, or tornado-prone area, or mudslide-prone area, etc.
● If we are going to tell people not to live in areas where natural disasters are likely,
there aren’t going to be very many places for people to live.
● Steve Wood
● Here’s a suggestion “MOVE TO HIGH GROUND”. How about a story detailing the
public costs for repeatedly ‘bailing’ out the same flood prone communities: dikes,
rebuilding infrastructure, subsidized flood insurance, temporary shelter, food,
medical care, etc. How about public costs/subsidies for endeavors that
create/magnify flooding: draining wetlands, agricultural drain tiles, hardcover in
lowlands (eg shopping centers), channeling/straightening creeks and steams. Heck,
I’d like to know the public cost of ‘fly-overs’ by public officials so they can get face
time on the news.
● Steve Wood
● Luke Van Santen
● Sure it does, just take the right precautions!
● Just like people who live in wooded areas prone to fire have to (or should have to!)
get steel roofs and are encouraged to build with non-flammable materials, people
who live in flood prone areas should get houses that can deal with varying water
levels. The Dutch have been doing it for years – link…
● Almost seems like common sense? Even if they were “bailed out” with public money
to get thsoe houses, they likely woudn’t need to be “bailed out” again?
● Jake
● For those foolish enough to live in flood-prone areas they should expect to have
hardship every year with no surprise and there should be no public tax dollars spent
to help these areas.
● Farmers are smart enough to avoid land that has water issues for the fact that it can
not be worked.
● People who choose to live in flood-prone areas should either smarten up and move…
or rely on flood insurance to pay for the damages they endure every spring and not
the public…this state can’t afford helping those who are not smart enough to help
themselves.
● No one is forcing these people to live in these poor locations…move.
● Alison
● No, it doesn’t make sense to live in a flood-prone area. Before you buy your house
look at a topographic map. A home is huge investment and is worth the effort.
● \\As much sense as living in a hurricane-prone area, or earthquake-prone area, or
wildfire-prone area, or tornado-prone area, or mudslide-prone area, etc.
● I agree living on directly on the coast in a hurricane prome area is a bad idea.
However some of these places, like tornado prone areas, are huge and the
destruction is random and unpredictable. Flood prone areas are not comparable.
You can see where the river is ahead of time.
● Phil
● To those who think flood are predictable, do you know anything about the way data
works? The Red River has had three major floods in thirteen years. Prior to 1997, it
had been decades. Three data points, and you want people to spend billions of
dollars to move, destroying a vibrant community and economy (indeed, one of the
few places doing well in this current economic climate). The federal government
was not offering buyouts to all of Fargo-Moorhead.
● When I moved here ten years ago, they had had one major flood in thirty-odd years.
And based on that one data point, you somehow expect us all to know that we were
going to hit with a massive flood within the decade, and then another a year after
that?
● I’m impressed you all have such amazing fortune-telling ability. Too bad you didn’t
share your wisdom with all of us prior to this second flood happening.
● Phil
● And based on the comment that you know where the river is ahead of time…
● You really expect that, in the course of human history, we won’t live along rivers?
Do you know how human settlement works? Do you understand the nature of
transportation prior to the 20th century, and the continued importance of rivers
even today?
● If you are suggesting on everyone moving away from rivers to avoid flooding, I’d be
really impressed to see where you think we should live. And how we’re going to get
water for our daily needs.
● Dave
● NO. The government should not be involved in any way supporting this behaviour. It
makes even less sense than living on the side of a volcanic mountain or a beach
prone to hurricane.
● Kevin
● Looks like this is moving into a discussion on the Red River Valley instead of flood
prone areas in general. So in that vein, lets look at a brief history of flooding in the
RRV.
● Looking at historical data from the RRV (see Red River Basin Decision Information
Network http://rrbdin.org) the RRV has had a “major flood” (defined as a gage
height and discharge of over 40′ and 30,000 cfs at Grand Forks, and over 25′ and
8000 cfs at Fargo) every five years.
● I don’t know about most people, but I call that flooding on a very regular basis.
● Al
● No, people should not build in flod-prone areas. When we looked for our current and
previous houses we considered this. The question was not are we in a government
designated flood plain. The question whether there is a possiblity of the nearest
river flooding and destroying our home, even if it hasn’t happened here before. And
to answer Phil’s concerns, we still found homes that met those criteria. Due to the
modern technology, those homes did have running water. And since we are no
longer dependent on travel by steam ship or canoe, transportation routes to and
from them were available.
● Elliott
● No they are called flood planes for a reason.
● The answer is to stop developement and restore wetlands that have been drained
over the last 150 years.
● Gordon in Two Harbors
● In most cases living in a floodplain is an act of foolishness, and one that neither the
government, nor insurance companies, should insure.
● HOWEVER, the Red River flooding is a completely different situation, where the
entire surrounding landscape over a vast area becomes flooded on occasion. The
local relief is so low (less than five feet per mile) that you really can’t get away from
the high water without investing in huge levees and river bypasses.
● James
● Sure… If you don’t mind loosing everything every once and awhile. Stupid is as
Stupid does.
● DTOM
● Mary
● Wow Clark, what political acuman you have. If everything is the Democrats fault,
why do the Republican Govoners Minnesota keeps electing, fund the prevention and
clean up of floods on an on going annual basis?
● Kurt
● Of course not. Nobody should live in a flood plane, nor in an earthquake prone area,
nor in tornado alley, nor where there is a threat of hurricane, or typhoon, or
tsunami, nor high on a hill where you can get struck by lightning, nor where you can
get caught in a blizzard, nor where there is threat of drought, nor near a volcano.
Let’s all get in our steel reinforced waterproof bunkers.
● Clair Haugen
● With apologies, this is not a question that leads to useful answers because people
will take risks to live in a desirable place if the risk seems manageable. Since the
devastating Red River flood of 1826(!), documented by the Hudson’s Bay factor at
Fort Garry in his official journal, people have known what the risk was. The question
he asked then still is the relevant one: if people are going to live in the RRV, how
should they adjust to the inevitable floods?
● Betsy
● What about the real-estate agents that sell these homes to people?
● I know, “buyer beware”, but I did want to point out that this problem is not just in
the hands of the people that buy or buid homes on flood plains.
● Let’s also ask, why county or city zoning allow homes to exist on known flood plains
at all?
● Couldn’t the flood planes of the Red River, for example, be left as green spaces? The
public could enjoy the area and stay clear when it floods in the spring.
● Finally, I’d like to see a demographic analysis of people that live on flood plains. If
it’s mostly low income, I think we’ll see that is common to any place that people live
despite significant health and safety risks.
● Michael Van Keulen
● Shoule people live in “tornado alley”? Should people live in hurricane prone, coastal
areas? Should people live along a fault line? Heck, should people live in areas where
the temperature dips to 30 degrees below zero or more? Almost every geographic
region is threatened by some potential natural disaster. We all need to take
responsibility for where we choose to live and take steps to prepare for unsavory
consequences.
● JBlilie
● It’s fine with me, as long as they take responsibility for all the costs involved, and
don’t look for help from the rest of us. It’s not like the flood plains aren’t well
defined!
● If you can’t get flood insurance — there’s probably a really good reason for that
(probably that your 10-year probability of getting flooded is 1.0 (100%).) Everyone
else should not be picking up the tab for people that knowingly build in flood plains.
● I don’t have an issue with preserving historic downtowns etc. (using levees for
instance) but new building in the way of predictable floods? No way.
● Rachel
● I live in Fargo and I answer the question as follows:
● No – it doesn’t make sense to live in a home that is at or below flood level. Neither
does it make sense to have a home at the moderate flood level.
● However, the entire city is in a lake bottom. For the homes in the major flood plain
as many homes are, the chances of flooding are smaller. Then the question becomes,
what’s better? A home threatened by hurricanes or mud slides? What about homes
threatened by earthquakes? Where is “safe”? At some point, we need to balance the
dangers and the opportunities.
● Right now, ND is one of the best places for getting a job in this economy. Its a great
place to live – but changes are still needed to make it better.
● JBlilie
● “Shoule people live in “tornado alley”? Should people live in hurricane prone,
coastal areas? Should people live along a fault line? Heck, should people live in
areas where the temperature dips to 30 degrees below zero or more? Almost every
geographic region is threatened by some potential natural disaster. We all need to
take responsibility for where we choose to live and take steps to prepare for
unsavory consequences.”
● I agree with your last sentence. However, floods really are different from other
natural “disasters.” Namely, floods are very predicable and the locations arevery
well known. That’s how engineers design appropriately sized and located bridges,
culverts, etc.
● I’ve lived 30 years in tornado country and never been hit. I’ve lived 20 years in
earthquake country and never been seriously hit. My relatives have lived >80 years
in florida and never lost their house to wind or flooding. In that period of time, the
Red River has flooded, predictably many, many times, including the record years of
2009 and 1997 (only 12 years apart!) and 1969.
● http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/fargo_geology/fldphotos1897-1996.htm
● Alison
● Maybe the reason I don’t get the need to live in a flood-prone area is because I have
never lived anywhere, a region or specific home, where I just couldn’t bear to live
anywhere else. There are a lot of beautiful places and really nice people in the
world, but there isn’t one place I have to be in order to be happy. I’m perfectly
content visiting my favorite places and people.
● Rich
● Today it makes little sense to live in a flood zone. Those who choose to do so should
not count on taxpayers to bail them out when the flooding comes, as it regularly
does. The government would do better in the long run to use tax dollars to
encourage those who have homes in the flood zone to move out.
● sharleen
● Nobody has mentioned the cost/benefit ratio. Gov’t usually funds insurance and
rebuilding if there is some money to be made through taxing the profits of the
industry on the land. I would like to see those figures run along with the current
flood information. It might help us understand why we continure to act so
counterintuitive.
● Personally, I think we need to bring individual responsibility into the argument,
especially in regard to tax dollars used to rescue those who choose extreme ‘sports.’
● Scott
● Flooding is a natural, even required phenomenon for farming. Eastern North Dakota
and Western Minnesota are areas where farming is a major occupation. When you
consider that the farmers must live where the crops will grow, it follows logically
that cities will begin to emerge in flood zone areas. Farmers cannot live by
themselves in isolation. Infrastructure and support networks are required, including
personnel such as schoolteachers, lawyers, computer programmers, business
analysts, and others. So, in considering this, it seems somewhat naive to simply
state that the government should spend money moving people out of flood zones.
The fact is, the nation needs people in the flood zones. 90% of all Durum Wheat
(used in pasta) grown in the United States is grown in North Dakota, in the flood
regions. 85% of sunflowers harvested in the United States are grown in North
Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, and 90% of Spring Wheat is grown in this
region. These are important crops, and require people living in the flood regions.
● Dana
● Does it make sense to live in a region that is below zero for half of the year?
● Does it make sense to live in a desert?
● Does it make sense to live in tornado alley?
● Does it make sense to live in an earthquake zone?
● Since early humans moved out of the tropics, we have had to respond to an
environment that is trying to kill us.
● Pat
● While some might feel that ignoring modern knowledge about climate and weather
patterns that produce disaster after disaster, like flooding or tsunami’s,
earthquakes, or volcanos, the practicality of those problems suggests that
subjecting generation after generation to those events is not rational when
relocation may be the wisest choice of humans who are known to be relatively
mobile.
● Perhaps islands were meant to be resorts, not year round living areas to prevent the
hazards of climatic conditions that humans cannot control. Respect for Mother
Nature amounts to common sense in not defying her capacity to destroy humans
and anything built in her wake. If Japan has had more than 1 destructive event in
any person’s lifetime, it seems more probable than not that such location is not a
habitable zone for humans.
● Human habitation that is unsafe is more folly than not reducing the chances for
survival.
● Modern knowledge, unlike ancient knowledge, can measure and evaluate where
habitable places on the planet are, and work toward not establishing high risk
locations where they should not be located.
● Is it not irresponsible to do otherwise?
● alissa
● Well i have a question, why do people stay there if it mostly floods every year? I’m
doing a report and i cant find anything that can help me. I mean i wouldnt still be
living there if it floods every year cuz i dont like losing things and you would have to
get new things every year.
● Can anyone help me find a answer?
● siobhan
● why do people choose to live in disaster prone areas?
Transcript of Topic – “People live in high-risk disaster areas because the
Topic – “People live in high-risk disaster areas because they know taxpayers will pay for relief and restoration.”
Kayla Hall, HU Debate/Dis. Pop. I
Opposition
People think about the pleasure they will gain from the beauty of their surroundings without thought to potential consequences of possible disasters.
Douglas Clement is a senior federal writer for the fedgazeete published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. He indicates that the reasons people find themselves in floodplains are mostly for pleasure and convenience. People forget about the misery of disasters, much less tax eligibility, and assume no need for relief. People even reduce their chances of federal financial recovery and drop government backed National Flood Insurance Program subsidy based on costs of premiums.
Pilkey article: People live and rebuild more costly and massive structures in risk zones not for tax relief, but instead out of a sense of patriotism and viability of beach replenishment. Some also argue that beach replenishment offers storm protection. Americans are very proud and resilient or too stubborn to be transplanted; coastal development creates jobs and tax revenue and economic benefits are too great to leave coastlines.
Support
Research is readily available on tax relief after flood, storm fire or other disasters.
Actuary science is a profitable and popular degree offered by most institutions to house and train those who suggest insurance levels investment ideas and other forms of decisive endeavors.
Tax relief is a major reason for US costal development.
Government is also viewed as having the high responsibility by many to protect individuals and to help them rebuild after devastation. Even US courts have upheld payments of tax payer dollars for response to victims in disasters such as in the district court case of US v. Air Florida.
Support Cont.
According to Bagstad, et. al, there is an increase in flood risk when coastal plains are developed, coupled with reliance on federal funds in most state and local tax policies when disasters arise.
Government subsidies disguise the true cost of disasters, leaving people unclear of host much and to what extent rebuilding on coasts means.
Social desirability suggests it is pleasing to outsiders and a large segment of the community impacted by devastation because it looks good to the public help others and would be non-benevolent for Government not to aid struggling citizens.
Purchasers consider personal flood insurance at a minimum either at closing or after and pay no mind to prevention when deciding to buy because they can feel secure that will be able to access government funds.
Actuary data and FEMA reports emphasize how a rise in insurance premiums that accurately reflect the cost of flood disaster would be prohibitive, so government clearly is expected to fill the gaps.
Ethics
Potential for misuse and deliberate lack of responsibility can be true for those seeking government assistance .
Should poor planning be rewarded?
It could seem heartless to blame individuals at moments of despair for making decisions to build in danger zones and potential sites for devastation when few others would think twice about doing the same things.
Implications for practice with displaced populations are that they are experiencing self-blame that likely needs to be reprogrammed to be less mentally impacting.
Should disaster insurance be mandatory?
Relocation could be more ethically evaluated and the discussion of rebuilding should be more thoroughly challenged from angles of logic as well as free-will.
Consider re-directing: European communities have accept flooding as inevitable and are starting to redirect floods away from the most vulnerable areas and towards least vulnerable areas, then paying individuals who are in more likely danger zones to create and bolster water mitigation plans.
Black Perspective
Strengths-based social justice ,Equality, Self-determination, Eliminating oppression , Benevolence,Human dignity
Restrict building in high-risk areas?
Today's topic: The fires near Los Angeles have destroyed or threatened homes in areas where the risk of a devastating blaze has long been known to be high. Should government do more to discourage building in wildlife-urban interfaces, or are there better means of protecting homes in fire-prone areas?
Let free markets guide fire protection services
Point: Adam B. Summers
Bill,
While the risk of wildfire damage to people and property is greater in wildlife-urban interfaces, heavy-handed government restrictions on where people live and how their homes are built are not the solutions to minimizing destruction. I agree with the sentiment from your Wednesday post that homeowners must be accountable for wildfire prevention and protection efforts on their own property. With private property rights come private responsibilities, including the responsibility, if one truly values his or her home and investment, to try to protect that property. It is not fair to taxpayers across the state to have to subsidize fire protection for such a relatively small percentage of the population that lives in high-risk areas and consumes a disproportionate amount of wildfire protection resources.
It does not help, however, that a sense of responsibility has been eroded by increased dependence on government. The more people look to the government to provide for all their wants and needs, the more they abdicate their own responsibilities.
A large part of the reason that so many resources are dedicated to protecting homes in high-risk areas is that the fire insurance market in California has been distorted. The problem is that the state's creation of an insurer of last resort in the form of the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan has effectively subsidized those who build or purchase homes in fire-prone areas. As I noted in Thursday's exchange, this shields home-buyers from the true costs of insuring homes in fire-prone areas, and thus encourages development in areas that would be considered too high-risk in a truly free fire insurance market.
A freer insurance market would rightly place the burden of living where there is a higher exposure to natural disasters like wildfires on those taking the risk, rather than the larger community. In the absence of market interventions and distortions such as the FAIR Plan, private insurance is the best way to evaluate the risk of fire damage, and thus help people make decisions about where to build or buy their homes, because the economic incentives of insurance companies and home-buyers are much stronger and more rational than the whims of political decision-making.
In your Thursday post, Bill, you voiced your approval of certain building codes passed recently, but I disagree that such government mandates are the way to go. While some building requirements may be advisable, people own their private property and should be free to determine how to build their homes (or which kind of home they want to buy) and what risks they are willing to take in this regard. Furthermore, when building specifications are subject to the political process, they become open to manipulation by lobbying and special interests that would benefit from the new regulations. What if the regulators do not adopt the proper standards? And who is to say what the right standards are? Specifications adopted for some homes and in some locations may not be appropriate for other homes in other locations. These decisions are all determined and tailored to meet specific needs in the free market by builders, insurers and home-buyers.
Zoning regulations should similarly be eliminated and avoided. Growth boundaries and other zoning laws that would prohibit people from living in certain high-risk or "protected" areas are often advocated by environmentalists and anti-growth activists who see people as a scourge of the environment rather than a part of it. Their true agenda is to inhibit development in order to concentrate populations in city centers. But in a free country, people should have the freedom to live where they choose -- including less dense areas closer to nature -- and not to be forced to live in high-density urban centers that might not suit their budgets or their preferred lifestyles.
Simply put, restrictive building codes and zoning laws violate property rights. Free markets and private arrangements do a better job of assessing risk, determining and allocating costs, satisfying consumers' demands and preserving individual liberties than centralized land-use planning. The less property rights are eroded by various governmental edicts and mechanisms, the more free and prosperous we are as individuals and as a nation.
Finally, the private sector should also be instrumental in providing wildfire prevention and protection services. To this end, volunteer firefighters, who make up nearly three out of every four firefighters in the nation, and private firefighters can help to provide protection against wildfire damage. As Orange County Register senior editorial writer and columnist Steven Greenhut argued in an article about the 2003 California fires, "Far better if we had private land and private firefighters, with the costs of firefighting borne privately by those who choose to live in the canyons. But when we choose to live near lands controlled by the government, and the government does a bad job managing them, why are we supposed to feel guilty when our houses burn down?"
Adam B. Summers is a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.
The free market works, but only to a point
Point: William Stewart
The conflict between zoning regulations and private property rights is a constant and high-voltage issue in every region of California in which people want to live and look at beautiful environments. However, if owners built wherever they wanted in high-risk environments, we could have a situation in which those homes themselves pose a risk. Some could contain fuel to speed up a fire as it whips across the landscape; neighbors would need to park fire engines near their properties. I do not even want to imagine the number of negligence and nuisance torts that could arise from just one subdivision in this scenario.
Restrictive building codes and zoning laws do restrict some property rights -- but they also define other property responsibilities and may reduce the number of neighbor vs. neighbor lawsuits. From my perch in Northern California, I see San Diego as a case of fairly loose regulations that allow homes to be built all across the landscape, and Los Angeles as a case of fairly strict regulations and a much smaller percentage of homes in fire-prone areas. The level of land-use regulation tends to match the political predilections of the majority of voters in those two counties. As a California taxpayer, I think the Los Angeles scenario looks a lot better financially from my point of view.
I do agree with you that our insurance system in California isn't good at honestly informing people how much fire protection really costs and making those who want that million-dollar view pay the real price. I also agree that even if everyone knew the full costs, a lot of people would still be willing to take on the risk and expense. But hiding the risks behind promises of effective fire suppression by the government when we know that airplanes cannot fly into dense smoke may lull some people into building homes in areas far beyond their tolerance for risk. At least at the casino, you know how much you can lose at the high-stakes table.
I doubt, however, that a pure free-market system with no required participation in government-backed schemes would work for very long. Unlike cars or computers, the full bundle of fire protection services would be very challenging to design well, and there are significant benefits if everyone in a neighborhood follows the same effective fire prevention strategies. Your and your house's safety depend partially on the fuel in your neighbor's yard. No one looking at a home with expensive fire-risk reduction components, such as windows that are shatter-proof even at very high temperatures, would have any idea whether they are good investments.
At the international level, there is a fairly free and robust market of ideas on how to provide and finance fire protection services in Mediterranean climates, where the long, hot summers guarantee big fires. California appears to be unique in our emphasis on expensive technology and spreading the cost among all citizens instead of mainly those in the high-risk environments. However, I think a pure free-market system would leave too many risks uncovered and would result in many bankruptcies or bailouts after a disaster. My prediction is that when California decides it cannot cover its increasing fire suppression bill with money from the General Fund, smaller fire districts will provide different levels of services and place a more transparent set of responsibilities on residents.
William Stewart is a forestry specialist at UC Berkeley
(Source: LA TIMES)
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/lessons/hurricanes.html
